ssh_mkdir

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so richly. It documents error semantics ('existing leaf path is still an error'), waiting behavior ('waits up to 30s for a free slot'), and a major security/policy exception ('NOT gated by SSH_MCP_COMMAND_WHITELIST / BLACKLIST'). These exceed basic expectations and give the agent concrete expectations beyond just 'creates a directory.'

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then immediately covers recursive behavior, then path relativity, then connection pool, then command policy. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It packs a lot of important detail into a compact paragraph without being verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (mkdir) and a fully documented schema, the description covers the key contextual gaps: error behavior, wait timeout, and command policy interplay. It does not explicitly state what happens after the 30s wait exceeds or what the success return value is, but these are minor for this operation. The description is largely complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, particularly for `recursive`: it explains the behavior of existing intermediate dirs vs. an existing leaf path, and the `~` expansion caveat for `path` (though that is also in the schema). This adds value beyond the raw property definitions, justifying a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a directory on a remote host via SFTP.' This clearly states the tool's action and domain, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'Unlike the other SFTP tools, the path may be relative,' which helps an agent tell it apart from other SFTP operations like ssh_write_file or ssh_ls.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context about when to use the tool, such as supporting relative paths and the recursive flag behavior, but it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying 'use this instead of ssh_exec for mkdir.' It includes a relevant exclusion about command policy (not gated by whitelist/blacklist), which is an implicit usage condition, but no direct when-not statements.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.